Article contents
From Manner to Subject Modification: Adverbialization in English
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 October 2010
Abstract
The paper discusses the process of adverbialization in English, focusing on one type of adverb, subject-modifier adverbs such as sadly, thoughtfully and pinkly. It is also shown that the -ly suffix in English (unlike its cognates in the other Germanic languages) has become an extremely versatile adverb suffix. Finally, it is argued that in English, the manner adverb category is prototypical, whereas other adverb types, notably subject-modifier adverbs, are less central adverbs.
- Type
- Review Article
- Information
- Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 20 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue on Adjuncts , December 1997 , pp. 179 - 195
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997
References
Anderson, J. 1989. Parameters of Syntactic Change. In Jones, C. (ed.), Historical Syntax. London: Longman, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Baayen, H. R. & Renouf, A. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive Lexical Innovations in an English Newspaper. Language 72, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellert, I. 1977. On Semantic and Distributional Properties of Sentential Adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 337–350.Google Scholar
Breivik, L. E. & Swan, T. 1994. Initial Adverbials and Word Order in English with Special Reference to Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 11–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dik, S. 1975. The Semantic Representation of Manner Adverbials. In Kraak, A. (ed.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1972–1973. Assen-Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, pp. 96–121.Google Scholar
Ernst, T. B. 1983. Towards an Integrated Theory of Adverb Position in English. Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 1992. Syntax. In Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L. 1982. On the Development of the Modals and Epistemic Function in English. In Ahlqvist, A. (ed.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 74–84.Google Scholar
Hanson, K. 1987. On Subjectivity and the History of Epistemic Expressions in English. Papers from the 23rd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society Part I, pp. 133–147.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. 1991. Some Principles of Grammaticalization. In Traugott, E. & Heine, B. (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. & Traugott, E. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. & Lysvåg, P. 1987. Understanding English Grammar. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Killie, K. (forthcoming a). Stativity and Adverbial Derivation: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study.Google Scholar
Killie, K. (forthcoming b). The Spread of -ly to Present Participles. In Fisiak, J. & Krygier, M. (eds), English Historical Linguistics 1996. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, G. 1984. Why Great: Greatly but Not Big: *Bigly? Studia Linguistica 38, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lady, Fortescue. 1994 (1st ed. 1934). There's Rosemary, there's Rue. London: Black Swan.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. I. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1988. The Nature of Grammatical Valence. In Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 91–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Settings, Participants and Grammatical Relations. In Tsohatzidis, S. (ed.), Meanings and Prototypes. London: Routledge, pp. 213–238.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1995. The Symbolic Alternative. In Kardela, H. & Persson, G. (eds), New Trends in Semantics and Lexicography. Umeå: Swedish Science Press, pp. 89–118.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1996. Cognitive Grammar. In Brown, K. & Miller, J. (eds), Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. Cambridge: Pergamon, pp. 51–54.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. 1982. Adverbs and Logical Form: A Linguistically Realistic Theory. Language 58, 144–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, W. 1997. A Cognitive Approach to English Adverbs. Linguistics 35, 247–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. 1994. Aspects of Adverbial Change in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1972. A Contemporary Grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Stubbs, W. 1986. A Matter of Prolonged Fieldwork: Notes towards a Modal Grammar of English. Applied Linguistics 7, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, T. 1988. Sentence Adverbials in English: A Synchronic and Diachronic Investigation. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Swan, T. 1991. Adverbial Shifts: Evidence from Norwegian and English. In Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Historical English Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 409–439.Google Scholar
Swan, T. 1996. A Note on Subject-modifiers in Ælfric's Lives of Saints. In Bjørhovde, G. & Rogne, G. (eds), Papers from the 6th Nordic Association of English Studies. University of Tromsø, pp. 477–485.Google Scholar
Swan, T. 1997. Old English Subject Modification and Adverbialization. In Fries, U., Müller, V. & Schneider, P. (eds), From Ælfric to the New York Times: Studies in English Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, T. & Breivik, L. E. 1997. Subject-oriented Adverbs in a Diachronic and Contrastive Perspective. In Hickey, R. & Puppel, S. (eds), Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 395–421.Google Scholar
Swan, T. & Breivik, L. E. (forthcoming). Subject Modification and Adverbialization in Old Norse and Old English.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. 1989. On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English. Language 65, 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. 1990. From More to Less Situated in Language. In Adamson, S., Law, V., Vincent, N. & Wright, S. (eds), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 497–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. 1995. Subjectification in Grammaticalization. In Stein, D. & Wright, S. (eds), Subjectivity and Subjectification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. 1996a. Subjectification and the Development of Epistemic Meaning: The Case of Promise and Threaten. In Swan, T. & Westvik, O. (eds), Modality in Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–210.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. 1996b. Grammaticalization and Lexicalization. In Brown, K. & Miller, J. (eds), Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. Cambridge: Pergamon, pp. 181–187.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. 1995. Subjectification, Syntax, and Communication. In Stein, D. & Wright, S. (eds), Subjectivity and Subjectification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, M. E. 1990. Toward a Theory of Syntactic Prototypes. In Tsohatzidis, S. (ed.), Meanings and Prototypes. London: Routledge, pp. 285–306.Google Scholar
- 17
- Cited by